270: Crossplayer Is the Future

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Crossplayer Is the Future

Why choose between single and multiplayer when you can have both?

Read Full Article

Totally agree! There are so few cooperative story mode games out there at the minute, but they're by far the most fun to play.

Because some games will never work when with more than one player. Ever.

It's an interesting way to add some of the single player benefits to multiplayer even though it's not particularly new, I think I first heard of something like this in 2000.

This is a wonderful idea in theory, but it must be handled very carefully.

Let us, imagine for a moment, that you are playing amazing story blended action shooty game. You are loving amazing story blended action shooty game, the story well written and the characters compelling, the hordes of well written foes, let us say, aliens, move as a hivemind, together, flanking, rushing....when one of them starts tea bagging a fallen comrade.

Your immersion was just dealt such a blow that it could never recover. Every errant twitch or odd movement now shouts out to you as some idiot on the other side of the game ruining it for everyone.

This is why I am hesitant about crossplayer. There can always be someone to ruin it for you. But let us look at this on the other hand....

On a devious note, imagine this : you are playing as a wonderful character you have spent some time in, in a hardcore diablo-esque death is permanent kind of deal. Now, unfortunately, after a wonderfully written and staged drama, your character is captured as a slave to be carted of to the arena. Little do you know, your foes are all the same. Fighting for their characters very lives...the stakes would be high. The game tense....each one giving their all....oh, think of it....

It is for this reason I am both excited and hopeful, yet cynical and careful about crossplayer. Given the right guiding hands, this could be amazing....

"Crossplay" is an unfortunate choice of terminology. I was initially horrified to click on this article's link because it sounds like anime or game cosplayers dressing up as characters of the opposite gender. Nothing wrong with that, I just don't want to see any more Sailor Moons with hairy legs and arms.

Perhaps "asymmetric multiplayer" or something.

Blending single- and multi-player in one game seems nice... but how much will it cost? Games are already expensive enough as they are.

DojiStar:
"Crossplay" is an unfortunate choice of terminology.

I second that notion.

MANFAYE IS THE FUTURE

I highly recommend UrbanDictionary/Google Images before suggesting a new term like this. :P

I vote we give it another name than "crossplayer"

No, seriously.

I'd like to see crossplayer as how Yahtzee described. A 3rd faction controlled by FPS players in someones RTS game

DojiStar:
"Crossplay" is an unfortunate choice of terminology. I was initially horrified to click on this article's link because it sounds like anime or game cosplayers dressing up as characters of the opposite gender. Nothing wrong with that, I just don't want to see any more Sailor Moons with hairy legs and arms.

Perhaps "asymmetric multiplayer" or something.

That's a pretty unwieldy term, but yes, good lord yes it's better than crossplayer.

Engarde:
This is a wonderful idea in theory, but it must be handled very carefully.

Let us, imagine for a moment, that you are playing amazing story blended action shooty game. You are loving amazing story blended action shooty game, the story well written and the characters compelling, the hordes of well written foes, let us say, aliens, move as a hivemind, together, flanking, rushing....when one of them starts tea bagging a fallen comrade.

Your immersion was just dealt such a blow that it could never recover. Every errant twitch or odd movement now shouts out to you as some idiot on the other side of the game ruining it for everyone.

I agree, I don't think this can really work if you're going for a really narrative driven game. Would something like Bioshock be improved if the single player had human enemies. Or Zelda for that mattter? I think Left 4 Dead works so well because it was never that serious. Characters spout one liners or banter all the time, and it's almost like chatting with some buddies at a bar. The joshing around is part of what makes it fun, so immersion killing isn't a deal breaker there.

I think it would take a lot to convince me a narrative could be improved, but it certainly adds a lot of scope to make it more fun.

When I say the word "crossplayer", I knew, I KNEW, they were going to talk about The Crossing.

Engarde:
This is a wonderful idea in theory, but it must be handled very carefully.

Let us, imagine for a moment, that you are playing amazing story blended action shooty game. You are loving amazing story blended action shooty game, the story well written and the characters compelling, the hordes of well written foes, let us say, aliens, move as a hivemind, together, flanking, rushing....when one of them starts tea bagging a fallen comrade.

Your immersion was just dealt such a blow that it could never recover. Every errant twitch or odd movement now shouts out to you as some idiot on the other side of the game ruining it for everyone.

This is why I am hesitant about crossplayer. There can always be someone to ruin it for you. But let us look at this on the other hand....

On a devious note, imagine this : you are playing as a wonderful character you have spent some time in, in a hardcore diablo-esque death is permanent kind of deal. Now, unfortunately, after a wonderfully written and staged drama, your character is captured as a slave to be carted of to the arena. Little do you know, your foes are all the same. Fighting for their characters very lives...the stakes would be high. The game tense....each one giving their all....oh, think of it....

It is for this reason I am both excited and hopeful, yet cynical and careful about crossplayer. Given the right guiding hands, this could be amazing....

...and that was the same thing I thought of... though it doesnt really bother me that much, but with humans as actual enemies, what would happen if they keep killing you? you get annoyed and stop playing, just like if it was a normal MP game. Im not sure if everybody is aware of this, but people are idiots and jack-offs. Im just not that sure I would want them in my story driven game. Now if there were certain parts, like you desribec in you second example, sure, that would be intense.

Was I the Only one who thought of Demons Souls when reading this article. It even has a boss that is replaced by a random player and you can be randomly invaded by another player while you can summon some allies in a largely single player game.

Instead of Crossplayer, how about taking the M from multi and making it 'Mingleplayer'? Which actually makes sense too.

I love the L4D series for just the reasons mentioned above. I've been playing multiplayer fps since Call of Duty, and singleplayer from way back when and the L4D series is the first game I've ever devoted over 300hrs of time to. I play regularly, rotating teams with the same bunch of 20 or so guys and gals and we're pretty good. But even if we weren't, I'd still love it. Provided people have voice chat, it has all the sufficient conditions to make me excited every time I enter a game. It doesn't need the grind of MMOs, or the instant anger of fast pace fps like CoD, it makes you work, but leaves you to laugh, cry, rejoice, run like hell, scream and sigh. The somehow workable mix of AI, linear map and non-uniform human tactics makes every single versus game an experience. And you really have to play a game like it for 300 odd hours to truly begin to understand the depth of tactical awareness the human mind can lay over a game's infrastructure. Even now I'm still finding teams out there that show me new and different ways of doing things. I love that, really love it. It puts linear single player games like Mafia 2 in a little box and labels them 'disappointingly narrow minded' and hides them under your bed to be brought out only for nostalgic purposes at low points in the gaming calendar a few years down the line.

I'd like to note that Brink doesn't look like any Shmup I've ever seen... Looks like a third-person action game or an FPS.

Does a game like Demon's Souls count as a cross-playing type of game?

EDIT: destructor beat me to it. :O

I just loved Arx Fatalis. I always thought it fell apart when you ran out of story, there was just NOTHING left to do. The characters never respawned. Shame really.

One thing that bothers me about this article is how it treats "crossplayer" (now there's a term that needs to be changed) as a new idea. It's not, in fact it's one of the oldest ideas in gaming.

Let me give you a little history, back when Spacewar was still blowing minds an in-depth, story-driven, multiplayer, cooperative RPG with human-controlled opponents appeared. It was called Dungeons & Dragons. Not long thereafter an electronic videogame genre quite similar to D&D was invented. They were called Multi-User Dungeons, or MUDs, which were done entirely via text. As technology advanced a little title called Everquest popularized the MMORPG genre and I'm sure your aware of the rest.

The article defines "crossplayer" as a story driven game that switches seamlessly between single player/cooperative/competitive mode. Don't buy into the hype, this is not a new idea.

Introducing a pervasive multiplayer element into a single player game has the problematic effect of almost completely destroying a sense of pacing. As the article says, one needs experience to enjoy multiplayer. An inexperienced player fighting human-controlled enemies in multiplayer mode will die very often unless fighting similarly experienced opponents, and even then the usual one-vs.-many paradigm common to single player games will have to be changed.

I am very interested in seeing MMO aspects competently integrated into genres other than RPGs.

Woo, Arkane had been really quiet lately.
I was beginning to lose hope for The Crossing.
For those of you who don't know, Arkane also developed Dark Messiah: Might and Magic.

people are jerks and multiplayer sucks. I honestly hope this ISNT the future.

How about a system where players are given incentive to play 'the bad guy' (to step into the shoes of enemy AI) in the form of XP or even keys to unlock later stages of the story? Ie, you can't get to the third act until you've cut your teeth in multiple roles in the first 2 acts.

Can we please not call this crossplaying if it's not already too late? Anyway yeah I would LOVE some games that I can play seemlessly with close friends but also play while they are not there.

Most MMO single player experiences are lacking, but they do allow for people to just drop in to a seemless world.

Dusk17:
people are jerks and multiplayer sucks. I honestly hope this ISNT the future.

ya pretty much. I don't play online because I can't, but I don't miss it. I only like multiplayer when it's with people I know, and not everyone has a bunch of nerdy friends ready to play at the drop of a hat. I know I don't.

Especially because I don't buy into hype and usually don't play games until they've been out for months, even years. Now imagine this: I start playing a cool online game with my friends. I then discover it's a mod for another crossplay[1] game. Oh cool. I happened to have the game with me so I could play the multiplayer mod and I try to sink my teeth into the crossplay mode.

OH SHIT. Now I walked into this place where everyone who is playing has played the game for five years and I know nothing about it. So every time I try to do something I get berated because I'm doing it wrong. And it's not like a regular multiplayer game in which I'm just one guy in a 10+ player team. I'm screwing everyone over.

Now, if you were to waltz into the servers for an old classic multiplayer game, you'd be blown to shreds anyway. But there's a couple of differences. One, you'd be blown to shreds in several different levels, so you could figure out how the game feels as a whole. Even if you're losing, the experience feels new for long enough that you don't suck that hard by the time it wears out, and then you can make an informed decision about whether or not you'll grit your teeth and try to learn the ropes of the game. But in a crossplay game I'll be stuck in the same first level forever, screwing everyone up repeatedly and everyone will keep quitting on me because they're doing their achievement/speed/standing on their heads singing O Canada run. Two, there are only two outcomes to a multiplayer match you enter completely green, unless you are the god of digital adaptitude: either you lose, or your team wins through no effort of your own. So even if what I just described didn't happen I still wouldn't enjoy the game because I'd be sitting back watching others beat it. If I wanted to do that I'd watch a Let's Play.

Do notice that 'finding about a game five years after it was launched because you were introduced to a mod' is exactly how I found Half-Life, so it's not some crazy event I dreamed up.

I guess there are some ways in which it can work. Honestly, from this little castle I stand upon not playing it, L4D isn't much different from your average multiplayer shooter, especially since players can play the infected as well. Not different enough to warrant a new name anyway. If you want to create a story, you're still going to go single player.

You know, just today I read an interview with a guy who said books were bound to change drastically, and become interactive, with the authour dialoguing with the readers and people subscribing to books instead of buying them... I read the interview and was like, what the fuck is this guy talking about? Then I realized he was talking about nonfiction, while when I hear 'book' I think of fiction. So yeah, it would be nice to reply and see the replies others left if I was reading a theoretical book about, say, multiplayer environments in games. But if I was reading the story of a guy who plays teh vydia gems I wouldn't want other people's fan fictions and literary analysis to creep into my reading. I wouldn't want a dialogue with the writer, I'd just want to hear it. This is kind of what's going on here - if what you want to deliver is a meaningful story experience, you need as much authorial control as you can, and that means not letting your PC be accompanied by teabagging teenagers.

[1] it's not that bad of a term, guys, get your minds off the gutter. Though 'mingleplayer' is pretty ingenious.

DojiStar:
"Crossplay" is an unfortunate choice of terminology. I was initially horrified to click on this article's link because it sounds like anime or game cosplayers dressing up as characters of the opposite gender. Nothing wrong with that, I just don't want to see any more Sailor Moons with hairy legs and arms.

Perhaps "asymmetric multiplayer" or something.

Glad to see I wasn't the only one ^^; And you forgot to mention girls dressed as bishonen.

Well it could be seen as focused multiplayer. MMOs offer the chance for players to meet and work togheter, but it's seen as only part of the experience. Besides, having to build massive dynamic worlds spreads the design work so thin that everything starts feeling samey.

I don't see how much further than what L4D did can they go without stepping over MMO's boundaries.

Hmm come think of it. Would I like to play a Fallout FPSRPG with other players in a single instanced world like Diablo 2 did? I sure would!

I'm joining the "crossplay is taken" camp, as someone used to girls dressing up as male anime and videogame characters (and vice-versa)...

...however, the asymmetric multiplayer discussed by the article sounds fascinating, worth investigating further, and will raise some fascinating design questions in the near future. Good article, just a shame about the choice of terminology!

I love cooperative play, and to the devs/pubs that keep claiming team deathmatch is coop... it's not. That is not what I mean at all.

It sounds like fun in theory, though not without the issues brought up by other users... It brings to mind that mode in Left 4 Dead where some players can play as zombies. However, I still prefer the traditional idea of multiplayer. Personally, I like multiplayer games better when they don't try to integrate themselves into a campaign, like chess or Team Fortress 2. Also, I have definitely heard the word "crossplay" used before to signify crossdressing cosplay. I second/third/whatever the "Mingleplayer" name... simply brilliant.

Addendum/rant:

I always get depressed when reading articles about the future of gaming, because they always seem to predict that the public wants the industry to move in the opposite direction I want it to. This is especially troubling as I am an aspiring game designer: If I make the kind of games I want to play (which I think any designer should for themselves), will there be anyone left to buy them? Hopefully I can settle for at least perma-indie status.

N. Evan Van Zelfden:
"We know that people have better videogame experiences when they play with other people," he emphasizes, adding: "At present, I would say that the large majority of people have the best experiences when they're playing cooperatively rather than playing competitively."

Take this quote from the article. I have always preferred competitive gameplay to cooperative, to the point that I will choose a free-for-all game mode over even a competitive team-based game mode, should I be given the choice. This is because I find that competitive team games and co-op games require each team member to be closer to each other in skill than the overall skill level balancing of a free-for-all game. If I'm less experienced than the majority of the team, I feel like a liability; that is, intimidated and judged. And yes, there is just as much intimidation (if not more) inherent in being the noob of a free-for-all crowd, but there's no ANGER directed at you (only laughter), and with every failure comes something to aspire to. Moving up just one rank feels like a victory, and doing so is easier and much more tangible than, say, going from a liability to a useful team contributor. And then there are situations when you're more experienced than most people in your team/match... in competitive team games and co-op games, you can easily feel frustrated, like the rest of the team is bringing you down, and even fail despite your own capabilities, but in free-for-all games, there's only the visceral pleasure of owning everyone around you.

I'm not saying the future looks bleak for people like me just because of this one example, though.. I've been really worried about the predicted death of the console and rise of digital distribution... I am a stalwart in the console camp when it comes to console vs. PC debates. Consoles provide a more level playing field in online play, as everyone has equal processing power and it is much harder to cheat. Many digitally-distributed games can be taken away or modified without your permission by the distributor. A physical copy is simply more secure (that is, less susceptible to loss) than a digital copy. Since computers are multi-purpose machines, your decisions that have nothing to do with gaming can affect your gaming, and vice versa. When your computer becomes obsolete for gaming, do you upgrade it (which is time-consuming and difficult), or buy a new one (which is usually more expensive than a new console and unnecessary if your computer works fine for other needs)? The only advantages PCs have are modding and an easier distribution method for indie and amateur developers.

I bet I've already gone too far off-topic, so I'll just briefly hit the rest of the topics to finish my lament: The trend toward real-time RPGs and strategy games and away from turn-based (which rewards faster decisions over smarter decisions), toward realism and away from stylized aesthetics/simplistic gameplay mechanics (which just plain takes away some of the fun), the rise of low-commitment casual/social gaming (which attracts new developers away from the greater depth of "core" games, thus diminishing the gaming options for this audience), and the general abandonment of local multiplayer (it's more fun/less intimidating to play with people you know, and it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive from online play).

Yeah, only the first two paragraphs of that rant have anything to do with the OP, but I've been bottling this up for a long time, and the rest does logically follow as a train of thought. Does anybody out there feel the same way as I do?

O, hai, thought I'd just drop buy and mention that Bungie did this with Halo: CE almost a decade ago, and have been doing it ever since, kthxbai.

I think what needs to happen is more CO-op games, because I still play the hell out of old FPS that have them (Duke3d, ROTT, Doom, ETC, even System Shock 2!)

But honestly, having players take the role of AI in SP(or Coop) is no different than having direct competitive MP with handicaps to try to rail a certain outcome. And there's an even bigger problem, how do you control the difficulty curve? Even more handicaps? Or it's just random how hard the game is?

Unless there's some "skill rating" system that sorts out which players play which enemies, at which point, the entire thing seems like a mess that can't offer the depth (And control) that SP modes have, nor the rush a balanced MP encounter has. It's easy to see how this can also lead to abuse. You have to restrict the opposition side in SP to the point they can't do practically anything, if you want depth in your SP campaign. The more you want an elaborate SP campaign, the more control you need. Human players are not AI you can give commands to, etc, it breaks the entire premise if your opponents can deliberately troll you out of playing the storymode, or simply be much better than you at playing the game (again, unless handicaps are in place. But then what's the point to the MP players if they'll always lose due to design???)

After all, if it's just going to be a MP gameplay storymode-thing, that's like having quake 3 arena's pseudo-SP mode but controlled by human opponents. Doesn't sound good.

I don't have much faith in the whole thing until I see some answers to the above problems.

The Random One:

Dusk17:
people are jerks and multiplayer sucks. I honestly hope this ISNT the future.

ya pretty much. I don't play online because I can't, but I don't miss it. I only like multiplayer when it's with people I know, and not everyone has a bunch of nerdy friends ready to play at the drop of a hat. I know I don't.

Especially because I don't buy into hype and usually don't play games until they've been out for months, even years. Now imagine this: I start playing a cool online game with my friends. I then discover it's a mod for another crossplay[1] game. Oh cool. I happened to have the game with me so I could play the multiplayer mod and I try to sink my teeth into the crossplay mode.

OH SHIT. Now I walked into this place where everyone who is playing has played the game for five years and I know nothing about it. So every time I try to do something I get berated because I'm doing it wrong. And it's not like a regular multiplayer game in which I'm just one guy in a 10+ player team. I'm screwing everyone over.

Now, if you were to waltz into the servers for an old classic multiplayer game, you'd be blown to shreds anyway. But there's a couple of differences. One, you'd be blown to shreds in several different levels, so you could figure out how the game feels as a whole. Even if you're losing, the experience feels new for long enough that you don't suck that hard by the time it wears out, and then you can make an informed decision about whether or not you'll grit your teeth and try to learn the ropes of the game. But in a crossplay game I'll be stuck in the same first level forever, screwing everyone up repeatedly and everyone will keep quitting on me because they're doing their achievement/speed/standing on their heads singing O Canada run. Two, there are only two outcomes to a multiplayer match you enter completely green, unless you are the god of digital adaptitude: either you lose, or your team wins through no effort of your own. So even if what I just described didn't happen I still wouldn't enjoy the game because I'd be sitting back watching others beat it. If I wanted to do that I'd watch a Let's Play.

Do notice that 'finding about a game five years after it was launched because you were introduced to a mod' is exactly how I found Half-Life, so it's not some crazy event I dreamed up.

I guess there are some ways in which it can work. Honestly, from this little castle I stand upon not playing it, L4D isn't much different from your average multiplayer shooter, especially since players can play the infected as well. Not different enough to warrant a new name anyway. If you want to create a story, you're still going to go single player.

You know, just today I read an interview with a guy who said books were bound to change drastically, and become interactive, with the authour dialoguing with the readers and people subscribing to books instead of buying them... I read the interview and was like, what the fuck is this guy talking about? Then I realized he was talking about nonfiction, while when I hear 'book' I think of fiction. So yeah, it would be nice to reply and see the replies others left if I was reading a theoretical book about, say, multiplayer environments in games. But if I was reading the story of a guy who plays teh vydia gems I wouldn't want other people's fan fictions and literary analysis to creep into my reading. I wouldn't want a dialogue with the writer, I'd just want to hear it. This is kind of what's going on here - if what you want to deliver is a meaningful story experience, you need as much authorial control as you can, and that means not letting your PC be accompanied by teabagging teenagers.

I agree with you on a lot of that, the number of times we've had to return to the lobby after the first map of L4D2 because the whole opposition has quit after an early tank or sometimes just losing a player to a well timed charge out of a window... well it's a lot. There are a lot of pricks out there who forget to put playing ahead of winning, but if you can spend the time trawling through them you do meet good, friendly, tolerant people to play with. I like to think of it as a transitionary period in mingleplayer (yes I'm coining it and I'm gonna keep using it till people are so annoyed they resign and start doing it to...) where the adjustment to how we game are held back by the old habitual ways we're used to. Sure there will always be ragers and griefers, but I like to think that given time there will be an increased pressure, not just on players to change their attitudes once mingleplayer becomes more mainstream, because co-operative play rests so much more on your behaviour than it used to, but also on games developers to make the most out of their play mechanics by placing the emphasis on rewarding co-operation with game goals and making it impossible to succeed without. I know I'm beginning to sound like some bleeding heart liberal politician, but the more mingleplayer develops the more I hope at least the ratio of grief to good nature improves.

I think the players playing the infected in L4D is exactly what mingleplayer requires. If you take them out you have co-op stand alone, it's you and your mates versus the AI on a linear map. Once you team the AI with the opposition in a very symbiotic relationship (boomers call AI hordes, spitters use AI hordes to keep the player from escaping the spit pool etc.) you really create a different game style.

[1] it's not that bad of a term, guys, get your minds off the gutter. Though 'mingleplayer' is pretty ingenious.

starrman:
Instead of Crossplayer, how about taking the M from multi and making it 'Mingleplayer'? Which actually makes sense too.

Snip

Man, that is freakin brilliant.

That said, I refuse to believe the "5% are online" statistic.
Especially when I consider that Valve has a very well famous'd game which revolves entirely around multiplayer.
Being team fortress 2.
Snap.

Am i the only one who doesn't enjoy co-op games? It seems to have found a big rise in popularity recently in the gaming industry, but i just don't like it. I hate relying on others. I'm a lone wolf and i'd rather any failures be my own. I don't want to have to rely on others. I want my accomplishments to be my own. This is my challenge and no-one else's. I know it sounds a little selfish and perhaps downright misanthropic, but that's just how i feel. If i wanted to play with other people i'd go online for some comeptitive multiplayer, though even then, i don't go on multiplayer all that often. I tend to have a preconception that most people are douchebags, which leads me to favour the single player portion of games more often. But i think the key reason i have a bit of animosity towards multiplayer component of games these days is twofold:

1) Local co-op. What the hell happened to that? I used to play co-op games but with mates and even my dad now and then when i was a kid on the N64 on the couch. Why is it suddenly un-cool to include splitscreen? I can't put a game on to play with friends unless they're outside of my house with their own xbox and xbox live? Sometimes that just isn't an option. Some games still allow for this (Halo etc) but some games that are just begging for it (Why the fuck was this omitted in Transformers for example?) just don't have it and that really grinds my gears.

2) Single player content is gimped or reduced to make room for the multiplayer aspect. Back in the day the average length of a game was 10-15 hours or sometimes longer. Now they get around with about six hours for the campaign and everything else is spent doing the multiplayer. When i enjoy the single player aspect the most i don't expect to be given half-baked content in favour of something else. I have always felt multiplayer is the bit on the side for you to mess around with after the single player is over, not the other way around. I'd rather they just focus on an epic single player experience with the multiplayer aspect not being the focus or overshadowing it. Exceptions to this are when the game is explicitly designed for multiplayer. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a good example of this.

Lastly the biggest issue of crossplaying is the tendency to come across people with 'bad sportsmanship.' Anyone who's played Crackdown 2 and had some twat join the match just to kill you and throw quackers everywhere and then leave knows what i'm talking about. The kind of pricks that ruin a mission for you just because they can drop in and out with little to no consequences. It's a little known fact that mischief tends to be more fun than playing by the rules, so temptation for people to act like imps in others' games is very high. It's those kinds of people i try my damnedest to avoid and why i truly dislike co-op in lieu of a solid single player experience. Why do i like local co-op you ask? Because i am right beside my comrades, i can see them and they can see me. We're human beings. We're not a pair of avatars on the TV screen. I can't put my faith in someone i can't see to not screw it up for their own personal amusement.

But... if there are other players surely that's still just multiplayer.

Oh great, this isn't good. I mean I love coop, but only if you get the right people to play with, and considering none of my RL friends have computers that have any sort of gaming power, I'm stuck with random people. Plus the huge problem with coop games is whores. In L4D, you get medpack whores. I can't count how many games I've had 10-15 health left at the end of the map, when they next loads, someone who had 60+ took a medkit, used it, then stole mine. So they all had plenty of health and I started out dead. Then in Borderlands, you get loot whores. Again, half the time I see people run past all the enemies and even bosses to go take all the loot. There was even on time I was playing as a siren with a hunter and a siren artifact was dropped, the hunter went and took it before I could pick it up so he could go sell it...

this story is so true, who can't like co op play with friends? I wish all games would have it :)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here